Chargers have hard sell ahead

January 22, 2003

Abstract:
"If you did a real harsh analysis, some people would say there are
two realistic alternatives," [David Watson] says. "Either (the
Chargers) could pay for (the stadium) themselves, or the city would enforce
the contract" and attempt to force the team to stay until 2020.

Now the team has declared that the facility is no longer state of the
art. The Chargers want the city to split the cost of a $400 million stadium
with the team. The Chargers refuse to turn over National Football League
and other financial information that would show they are not competitive
at the current facility, and can get out under the contract.

Watson says, there are several holes in the Chargers' proposal that are
troubling the task force. One is the Chargers' assumption that the city
will get 100 percent of the tax revenue from proposed redevelopment around
the stadium.

"The Chargers have a big challenge ahead of them" to sell city
taxpayers on putting $200 million into a new stadium, says David Watson,
chairman of the Citizens' Task Force on Chargers Issues.

Watson expressed this view yesterday morning to the Point Loma Optimists
meeting at the Bali Ha'i. I didn't hear the speech, but learned about
it, and interviewed him later.

"If you did a real harsh analysis, some people would say there are
two realistic alternatives," Watson says. "Either (the Chargers)
could pay for (the stadium) themselves, or the city would enforce the
contract" and attempt to force the team to stay until 2020.

In 1997, the Chargers agreed to stay until 2020 after the city refurbished
the facility now known as Qualcomm Stadium and also gave them a practice
field. But the team is able to test the waters elsewhere every few years
under certain conditions.

Now the team has declared that the facility is no longer state of the
art. The Chargers want the city to split the cost of a $400 million stadium
with the team. The Chargers refuse to turn over National Football League
and other financial information that would show they are not competitive
at the current facility, and can get out under the contract.

But, Watson says, there are several holes in the Chargers' proposal that
are troubling the task force. One is the Chargers' assumption that the
city will get 100 percent of the tax revenue from proposed redevelopment
around the stadium.

"Actually, the city's share is only 18 percent," Watson says.
The county, school district and other governmental bodies get the rest
of the pie.

There are also questions about parking on game days and whether a park
would be developed. "The public might support a park, rather than
high-density development," Watson says.

Then there are costs. "It's closer to a billion-dollar project than
a $400 million one," says Watson, referring to the stadium and ancillary
development.

In addition, there are questions about the price of the stadium itself.
"People say $350 million to $450 million," Watson notes. Others
say that the cost of the bonds to finance Qualcomm Stadium plus parking
could push the total above $600 million.

Watson notes that the rehabilitation of Chicago's Soldier Field for the
Chicago Bears will cost well more than $600 million.

With water costs headed up and rationing a possibility, the infrastructure
in sorry shape, and the financially ailing state likely to rob funds from
local coffers as it slashes education and health-care spending, the Chargers
do indeed have a major sales job ahead of them.

Happy days

For the 1998 Super Bowl, the administration of then-Mayor Susan Golding
plotted a campaign to impress visiting media with how San Diego had created
a "Super Bowl class facility costing $78 million," as contrasted
with the $200 million to $300 million shelled out by other cities.

That statement is among the howlers -- in hindsight -- in a document unearthed
in a public records request by attorney Michael Aguirre.

Among other talking points in the 1998 propaganda document: San Diego
had created "an innovative formula" that stabilized team revenue
and enabled the city to get higher rents from the team. That "innovative
formula" was the 60,000-seat guarantee.

"The San Diego Chargers' commitment to stay in San Diego made the
deal possible," gushed the document. It also said the stadium improvements
would pay for themselves.